Er ah well . Another article? Well it seems that all the my engine lasted over a million miles articles used bulk oil changed at a lube place every 3,000 miles
changing your oil too often will harm your engine
- Thread starter fj610
- Start date
- Status
Sorry to revive an old thread. Was there ever a followup to this since 2010?
Is it the position of BITOG participants that indeed halving an automaker's recommended oil change interval may in fact lead to more oil deposits? A fellow participant on Rennlist directed me here, much to my surprise.
Is it the position of BITOG participants that indeed halving an automaker's recommended oil change interval may in fact lead to more oil deposits? A fellow participant on Rennlist directed me here, much to my surprise.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by superangrypenguin
Sorry to revive an old thread. Was there ever a followup to this since 2010?
Is it the position of BITOG participants that indeed halving an automaker's recommended oil change interval may in fact lead to more oil deposits? A fellow participant on Rennlist directed me here, much to my surprise.
That's just common sense. Basically every time you charge a crankcase with brand new oil, you're doing an in-crankcase version of the "NOACK" volatility test. With the products of such ending up in the intake, of which there inevitably will be some deposits, especially in direct injection engines.
NOACK volatility test numbers on currently in-API-spec oils have come down considerably since 2010, with even "dino" (non-synthetic) oils being required to have significant concentrations of group III synthetic simply to meet spec. While API-spec "dino" oils of 2010 would have been still more weighted to group-2 basestocks.
Manufacturers have, in the past decade, recognized the need for longer OCI's and much higher quality lubricants to properly maintain their products, and have focused their efforts accordingly.
Sorry to revive an old thread. Was there ever a followup to this since 2010?
Is it the position of BITOG participants that indeed halving an automaker's recommended oil change interval may in fact lead to more oil deposits? A fellow participant on Rennlist directed me here, much to my surprise.
That's just common sense. Basically every time you charge a crankcase with brand new oil, you're doing an in-crankcase version of the "NOACK" volatility test. With the products of such ending up in the intake, of which there inevitably will be some deposits, especially in direct injection engines.
NOACK volatility test numbers on currently in-API-spec oils have come down considerably since 2010, with even "dino" (non-synthetic) oils being required to have significant concentrations of group III synthetic simply to meet spec. While API-spec "dino" oils of 2010 would have been still more weighted to group-2 basestocks.
Manufacturers have, in the past decade, recognized the need for longer OCI's and much higher quality lubricants to properly maintain their products, and have focused their efforts accordingly.
Originally Posted by pitzel
Originally Posted by superangrypenguin
Sorry to revive an old thread. Was there ever a followup to this since 2010?
Is it the position of BITOG participants that indeed halving an automaker's recommended oil change interval may in fact lead to more oil deposits? A fellow participant on Rennlist directed me here, much to my surprise.
That's just common sense. Basically every time you charge a crankcase with brand new oil, you're doing an in-crankcase version of the "NOACK" volatility test. With the products of such ending up in the intake, of which there inevitably will be some deposits, especially in direct injection engines.
NOACK volatility test numbers on currently in-API-spec oils have come down considerably since 2010, with even "dino" (non-synthetic) oils being required to have significant concentrations of group III synthetic simply to meet spec. While API-spec "dino" oils of 2010 would have been still more weighted to group-2 basestocks.
Manufacturers have, in the past decade, recognized the need for longer OCI's and much higher quality lubricants to properly maintain their products, and have focused their efforts accordingly.
Thanks for the info. Do you have any studies you can point to which have either specifically looked at this issue or has proven this specific theory that more aggressive oil changes may lead to an increase in carbon buildup for intake valves?
Originally Posted by superangrypenguin
Sorry to revive an old thread. Was there ever a followup to this since 2010?
Is it the position of BITOG participants that indeed halving an automaker's recommended oil change interval may in fact lead to more oil deposits? A fellow participant on Rennlist directed me here, much to my surprise.
That's just common sense. Basically every time you charge a crankcase with brand new oil, you're doing an in-crankcase version of the "NOACK" volatility test. With the products of such ending up in the intake, of which there inevitably will be some deposits, especially in direct injection engines.
NOACK volatility test numbers on currently in-API-spec oils have come down considerably since 2010, with even "dino" (non-synthetic) oils being required to have significant concentrations of group III synthetic simply to meet spec. While API-spec "dino" oils of 2010 would have been still more weighted to group-2 basestocks.
Manufacturers have, in the past decade, recognized the need for longer OCI's and much higher quality lubricants to properly maintain their products, and have focused their efforts accordingly.
Thanks for the info. Do you have any studies you can point to which have either specifically looked at this issue or has proven this specific theory that more aggressive oil changes may lead to an increase in carbon buildup for intake valves?
Originally Posted by superangrypenguin
Thanks for the info. Do you have any studies you can point to which have either specifically looked at this issue or has proven this specific theory that more aggressive oil changes may lead to an increase in carbon buildup for intake valves?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26273486?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents / https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2016-01-2252/
Quote
Using a vehicle equipped with a 2.0L turbo GDI engine, the mechanisms leading to deposit formation have been studied and analyzed, and found to be a combination of engine oil, engine-wear elements, unburned fuel, and exhaust gas contaminants. The rate of accumulation was also found to be affected by engine lubricant formulation variables.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2002-01-2660/
Quote
A test cycle was devised to accumulate deposits over a 30.000km oil drain interval and was conducted at an independent vehicle test track facility....The project clearly demonstrated that lubricant formulation has a significant impact on the level of IVD formation. There are indications that the additised fuel may also have had a beneficial impact on IVDs. The field test program also showed that despite the build up of deposits on the intake valves over the 30.000km test no detrimental effect on drivability was experienced with the Ford DISI engine technology.
Its definitely not a binary "XYZ changing oil overly frequently is 100% at fault for the problem", but it is fairly clear that the lubricant, and its volatilization does play a very significant and crucial role in deposit formation. Optimizing the exposure of the intake to such oil distillates, while preserving the distilland's ability to provide ongoing lubrication is obviously the goal of OCI optimization.
The industry, of course, faces an interesting battle. Very long OCI recommendations by manufacturers are often written off by maintainers as serving the manufacturer's self-interests and ignored (go to any BMW enthusiast forum, and you'll probably be told that the BMW recommended OCI's are "insane" and not to be followed). The oil change is also the only time at which most cars in North America receive anything that resembles a maintenance inspection as most people "run to fail" otherwise, so there are brand reputation risks (and even legal risks given the proliferation of SUVs with their well known higher sensitivity to tire maintenance) with having vehicles go extended periods without maintenance inspection. Retail oil vendors have little interest in pushing long drain intervals for obvious reasons. Widespread UOA to support very long drain intervals just isn't practical or fitting with the North American economic model of maintenance (nobody would accept visiting a Jiffy Lube on Monday, paying $60 for a UOA, and being told to come back in 2 weeks once their UOA test results came in). So the efforts appear to have been heavily aimed at "harm reduction" -- very high oil specs even for oils that will mostly be used in "legacy" vehicles. Supplemental port fuel injectors (Toyota et al). And maintenance minders that guide the use of much longer than traditionally employed OCIs. Centralized maintenance databases also allowing manufacturers to crack down on their "official" servicing networks that recommend inappropriately low OCIs with cheap/bulk out-of-supply chain acquired oil as a maintenance services marketing scheme. As well as auditing for quantities of official supplies ordered against recorded-as-dispensed OC's. The bias of "more oil changes is always better" seems to push even ordinarily rational people into refusing to fully investigate overly frequent OC's as a significantly contributing root cause of intake occlusion far in excess of what was experienced by the manufacturer during the manufacturer's own internal testing.
Thanks for the info. Do you have any studies you can point to which have either specifically looked at this issue or has proven this specific theory that more aggressive oil changes may lead to an increase in carbon buildup for intake valves?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26273486?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents / https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2016-01-2252/
Quote
Using a vehicle equipped with a 2.0L turbo GDI engine, the mechanisms leading to deposit formation have been studied and analyzed, and found to be a combination of engine oil, engine-wear elements, unburned fuel, and exhaust gas contaminants. The rate of accumulation was also found to be affected by engine lubricant formulation variables.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2002-01-2660/
Quote
A test cycle was devised to accumulate deposits over a 30.000km oil drain interval and was conducted at an independent vehicle test track facility....The project clearly demonstrated that lubricant formulation has a significant impact on the level of IVD formation. There are indications that the additised fuel may also have had a beneficial impact on IVDs. The field test program also showed that despite the build up of deposits on the intake valves over the 30.000km test no detrimental effect on drivability was experienced with the Ford DISI engine technology.
Its definitely not a binary "XYZ changing oil overly frequently is 100% at fault for the problem", but it is fairly clear that the lubricant, and its volatilization does play a very significant and crucial role in deposit formation. Optimizing the exposure of the intake to such oil distillates, while preserving the distilland's ability to provide ongoing lubrication is obviously the goal of OCI optimization.
The industry, of course, faces an interesting battle. Very long OCI recommendations by manufacturers are often written off by maintainers as serving the manufacturer's self-interests and ignored (go to any BMW enthusiast forum, and you'll probably be told that the BMW recommended OCI's are "insane" and not to be followed). The oil change is also the only time at which most cars in North America receive anything that resembles a maintenance inspection as most people "run to fail" otherwise, so there are brand reputation risks (and even legal risks given the proliferation of SUVs with their well known higher sensitivity to tire maintenance) with having vehicles go extended periods without maintenance inspection. Retail oil vendors have little interest in pushing long drain intervals for obvious reasons. Widespread UOA to support very long drain intervals just isn't practical or fitting with the North American economic model of maintenance (nobody would accept visiting a Jiffy Lube on Monday, paying $60 for a UOA, and being told to come back in 2 weeks once their UOA test results came in). So the efforts appear to have been heavily aimed at "harm reduction" -- very high oil specs even for oils that will mostly be used in "legacy" vehicles. Supplemental port fuel injectors (Toyota et al). And maintenance minders that guide the use of much longer than traditionally employed OCIs. Centralized maintenance databases also allowing manufacturers to crack down on their "official" servicing networks that recommend inappropriately low OCIs with cheap/bulk out-of-supply chain acquired oil as a maintenance services marketing scheme. As well as auditing for quantities of official supplies ordered against recorded-as-dispensed OC's. The bias of "more oil changes is always better" seems to push even ordinarily rational people into refusing to fully investigate overly frequent OC's as a significantly contributing root cause of intake occlusion far in excess of what was experienced by the manufacturer during the manufacturer's own internal testing.
Originally Posted by pitzel
Originally Posted by superangrypenguin
Thanks for the info. Do you have any studies you can point to which have either specifically looked at this issue or has proven this specific theory that more aggressive oil changes may lead to an increase in carbon buildup for intake valves?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26273486?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents / https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2016-01-2252/
Quote
Using a vehicle equipped with a 2.0L turbo GDI engine, the mechanisms leading to deposit formation have been studied and analyzed, and found to be a combination of engine oil, engine-wear elements, unburned fuel, and exhaust gas contaminants. The rate of accumulation was also found to be affected by engine lubricant formulation variables.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2002-01-2660/
Quote
A test cycle was devised to accumulate deposits over a 30.000km oil drain interval and was conducted at an independent vehicle test track facility....The project clearly demonstrated that lubricant formulation has a significant impact on the level of IVD formation. There are indications that the additised fuel may also have had a beneficial impact on IVDs. The field test program also showed that despite the build up of deposits on the intake valves over the 30.000km test no detrimental effect on drivability was experienced with the Ford DISI engine technology.
Its definitely not a binary "XYZ changing oil overly frequently is 100% at fault for the problem", but it is fairly clear that the lubricant, and its volatilization does play a very significant and crucial role in deposit formation. Optimizing the exposure of the intake to such oil distillates, while preserving the distilland's ability to provide ongoing lubrication is obviously the goal of OCI optimization.
The industry, of course, faces an interesting battle. Very long OCI recommendations by manufacturers are often written off by maintainers as serving the manufacturer's self-interests and ignored (go to any BMW enthusiast forum, and you'll probably be told that the BMW recommended OCI's are "insane" and not to be followed). The oil change is also the only time at which most cars in North America receive anything that resembles a maintenance inspection as most people "run to fail" otherwise, so there are brand reputation risks (and even legal risks given the proliferation of SUVs with their well known higher sensitivity to tire maintenance) with having vehicles go extended periods without maintenance inspection. Retail oil vendors have little interest in pushing long drain intervals for obvious reasons. Widespread UOA to support very long drain intervals just isn't practical or fitting with the North American economic model of maintenance (nobody would accept visiting a Jiffy Lube on Monday, paying $60 for a UOA, and being told to come back in 2 weeks once their UOA test results came in). So the efforts appear to have been heavily aimed at "harm reduction" -- very high oil specs even for oils that will mostly be used in "legacy" vehicles. Supplemental port fuel injectors (Toyota et al). And maintenance minders that guide the use of much longer than traditionally employed OCIs. Centralized maintenance databases also allowing manufacturers to crack down on their "official" servicing networks that recommend inappropriately low OCIs with cheap/bulk out-of-supply chain acquired oil as a maintenance services marketing scheme. As well as auditing for quantities of official supplies ordered against recorded-as-dispensed OC's. The bias of "more oil changes is always better" seems to push even ordinarily rational people into refusing to fully investigate overly frequent OC's as a significantly contributing root cause of intake occlusion far in excess of what was experienced by the manufacturer during the manufacturer's own internal testing.
I appreciate this information. Do you happen to have the SAE study in full? If not I'll fork over the funds to pay for it. It's just unfortunate because the information in the abstract is nothing new to me. I'm keen to see if that study examines the issue at hand.
I agree with you that virgin oils have a level of volatility that is worrisome to me. What I'm trying to figure out is the correlation to intake valve buildup and whether or not that resultant intake valve buildup of carbon is worse off than engine oil that has been sitting in a motor for a while being subject to the usual stressors, which in several gasoline direct injection applications involves turbochargers. The recent use of thinner oils also is worrying for me.
On the one hand your claim appears to be backed up by common sense in regards to virgin oil volatility, but on the other hand the other poison is what I talked about in this post.
I'm trying to discern what is the least evil, so to speak.
Edited to add:
Most folks don't know that engine oil on turbofan engines do not require changing. I'm certain most on here do. In particular for my question at hand I wonder if it's better to wait until a prescribed oil change interval or to change things half way. In my case with 508.00 engine oil at a 0w20 weight, I'm going to have to seriously wonder if I wait for the 15,000km, or change it at 7500km. That's what I have been trying to figure out over the last few months.
Deal with virgin oil volatility or used oil volatility? I have no idea and as an engineer I'm trying to see if there are studies on this.
Originally Posted by superangrypenguin
Thanks for the info. Do you have any studies you can point to which have either specifically looked at this issue or has proven this specific theory that more aggressive oil changes may lead to an increase in carbon buildup for intake valves?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26273486?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents / https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2016-01-2252/
Quote
Using a vehicle equipped with a 2.0L turbo GDI engine, the mechanisms leading to deposit formation have been studied and analyzed, and found to be a combination of engine oil, engine-wear elements, unburned fuel, and exhaust gas contaminants. The rate of accumulation was also found to be affected by engine lubricant formulation variables.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2002-01-2660/
Quote
A test cycle was devised to accumulate deposits over a 30.000km oil drain interval and was conducted at an independent vehicle test track facility....The project clearly demonstrated that lubricant formulation has a significant impact on the level of IVD formation. There are indications that the additised fuel may also have had a beneficial impact on IVDs. The field test program also showed that despite the build up of deposits on the intake valves over the 30.000km test no detrimental effect on drivability was experienced with the Ford DISI engine technology.
Its definitely not a binary "XYZ changing oil overly frequently is 100% at fault for the problem", but it is fairly clear that the lubricant, and its volatilization does play a very significant and crucial role in deposit formation. Optimizing the exposure of the intake to such oil distillates, while preserving the distilland's ability to provide ongoing lubrication is obviously the goal of OCI optimization.
The industry, of course, faces an interesting battle. Very long OCI recommendations by manufacturers are often written off by maintainers as serving the manufacturer's self-interests and ignored (go to any BMW enthusiast forum, and you'll probably be told that the BMW recommended OCI's are "insane" and not to be followed). The oil change is also the only time at which most cars in North America receive anything that resembles a maintenance inspection as most people "run to fail" otherwise, so there are brand reputation risks (and even legal risks given the proliferation of SUVs with their well known higher sensitivity to tire maintenance) with having vehicles go extended periods without maintenance inspection. Retail oil vendors have little interest in pushing long drain intervals for obvious reasons. Widespread UOA to support very long drain intervals just isn't practical or fitting with the North American economic model of maintenance (nobody would accept visiting a Jiffy Lube on Monday, paying $60 for a UOA, and being told to come back in 2 weeks once their UOA test results came in). So the efforts appear to have been heavily aimed at "harm reduction" -- very high oil specs even for oils that will mostly be used in "legacy" vehicles. Supplemental port fuel injectors (Toyota et al). And maintenance minders that guide the use of much longer than traditionally employed OCIs. Centralized maintenance databases also allowing manufacturers to crack down on their "official" servicing networks that recommend inappropriately low OCIs with cheap/bulk out-of-supply chain acquired oil as a maintenance services marketing scheme. As well as auditing for quantities of official supplies ordered against recorded-as-dispensed OC's. The bias of "more oil changes is always better" seems to push even ordinarily rational people into refusing to fully investigate overly frequent OC's as a significantly contributing root cause of intake occlusion far in excess of what was experienced by the manufacturer during the manufacturer's own internal testing.
I appreciate this information. Do you happen to have the SAE study in full? If not I'll fork over the funds to pay for it. It's just unfortunate because the information in the abstract is nothing new to me. I'm keen to see if that study examines the issue at hand.
I agree with you that virgin oils have a level of volatility that is worrisome to me. What I'm trying to figure out is the correlation to intake valve buildup and whether or not that resultant intake valve buildup of carbon is worse off than engine oil that has been sitting in a motor for a while being subject to the usual stressors, which in several gasoline direct injection applications involves turbochargers. The recent use of thinner oils also is worrying for me.
On the one hand your claim appears to be backed up by common sense in regards to virgin oil volatility, but on the other hand the other poison is what I talked about in this post.
I'm trying to discern what is the least evil, so to speak.
Edited to add:
Most folks don't know that engine oil on turbofan engines do not require changing. I'm certain most on here do. In particular for my question at hand I wonder if it's better to wait until a prescribed oil change interval or to change things half way. In my case with 508.00 engine oil at a 0w20 weight, I'm going to have to seriously wonder if I wait for the 15,000km, or change it at 7500km. That's what I have been trying to figure out over the last few months.
Deal with virgin oil volatility or used oil volatility? I have no idea and as an engineer I'm trying to see if there are studies on this.
Last edited by a moderator:
UOA at 7000km and see how much life the oil has left
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted by ctrcbob
The owners manual of the last two Renault Laguna's, that I leased while in France state that the oil should be changed every 30,000 km. That is 18,750 miles.
Yes, they use "real" full synthetics in Europe.
What did they specify for The Real Full Synthetic … they can label SHC and sell the lube …
As mentioned before … my driver (in EU) did 1.1m Km on Mobil 1 0w40 doing 10k OCI's … that might have been early … but that "boil off" did not get to his engine … (he traded it running fine) …
BTW… He's basically a taxi driver on full time hire so there's plenty engine idle hours in the mix too …
The owners manual of the last two Renault Laguna's, that I leased while in France state that the oil should be changed every 30,000 km. That is 18,750 miles.
Yes, they use "real" full synthetics in Europe.
What did they specify for The Real Full Synthetic … they can label SHC and sell the lube …
As mentioned before … my driver (in EU) did 1.1m Km on Mobil 1 0w40 doing 10k OCI's … that might have been early … but that "boil off" did not get to his engine … (he traded it running fine) …
BTW… He's basically a taxi driver on full time hire so there's plenty engine idle hours in the mix too …
Originally Posted by SilverFusion2010
UOA at 7000km and see how much life the oil has left
The only problem with this is that by siphoning out oil and sending it off that one has to add in fresh oil after the fact, thus introducing virgin oil volatility. Does it really matter at the end of the day? Probably not, but it is a valid concern methinks.
UOA at 7000km and see how much life the oil has left
The only problem with this is that by siphoning out oil and sending it off that one has to add in fresh oil after the fact, thus introducing virgin oil volatility. Does it really matter at the end of the day? Probably not, but it is a valid concern methinks.
I'll add this anecdote. I used nothing but Mobil-1 5w-30 for the ten years I owned my 1988 Honda Civic sedan. Back in those days, I was in total oil overkill mode, and I changed the stuff more frequently than necessary. I did 5k in the latter few years, but for the first couple, I was dumped a good fill of M1 every 3k!!! One time, I even dumped relatively fresh oil early because I'd driven 15 min or so on a dusty dirt road! Now that's getting extreme.
When I traded the car in 1998 (still regret...), the engine was spotless inside and ran essentially like new. Harm? No Wasteful, maybe...
When I traded the car in 1998 (still regret...), the engine was spotless inside and ran essentially like new. Harm? No Wasteful, maybe...
I think the last couple responses just read the thread title, and not the OP.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
I think the last couple responses just read the thread title, and not the OP.
Oh no, I read the OP. My point was that if this theory was right, then for virtually its entire life, my badly "over changed" 88 Civic was choking on early OCI evaporated oil fumes. So, if it was ingesting all that evaporated oil, it certainly didn't seem to do any harm.
I think the last couple responses just read the thread title, and not the OP.
Oh no, I read the OP. My point was that if this theory was right, then for virtually its entire life, my badly "over changed" 88 Civic was choking on early OCI evaporated oil fumes. So, if it was ingesting all that evaporated oil, it certainly didn't seem to do any harm.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
I think the last couple responses just read the thread title, and not the OP.
Oh no, I read the OP. My point was that if this theory was right, then for virtually its entire life, my badly "over changed" 88 Civic was choking on early OCI evaporated oil fumes. So, if it was ingesting all that evaporated oil, it certainly didn't seem to do any harm.
Right, because it was port injected (maybe even carbureted?). Much different results nowadays.
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
I think the last couple responses just read the thread title, and not the OP.
Oh no, I read the OP. My point was that if this theory was right, then for virtually its entire life, my badly "over changed" 88 Civic was choking on early OCI evaporated oil fumes. So, if it was ingesting all that evaporated oil, it certainly didn't seem to do any harm.
Right, because it was port injected (maybe even carbureted?). Much different results nowadays.
Last edited:
That Civic was indeed fuel injected, but obviously not a DI engine. The cited article actually says, "Volatility is particularly bad for a DI engine because all of the lost fractions exit via the PCV system...".
Bt saying the issue may be "particularly bad" for DI engines the author is plainly NOT saying it is bad ONLY FOR DI engines. At any rate, if the phenomenon is for real, it didn't afflict that Civic that I could tell. And if it is as serious as the author implies, why aren't car makers saying, "DO NOT change more frequently than..."?
Bt saying the issue may be "particularly bad" for DI engines the author is plainly NOT saying it is bad ONLY FOR DI engines. At any rate, if the phenomenon is for real, it didn't afflict that Civic that I could tell. And if it is as serious as the author implies, why aren't car makers saying, "DO NOT change more frequently than..."?
Originally Posted by superangrypenguin
one has to add in fresh oil after the fact, thus introducing virgin oil volatility. Does it really matter at the end of the day? Probably not, but it is a valid concern methinks.
By the time the 4oz of virgin oil gets into the crankcase, you're talking 2.5% or less of the total crankcase volume on the average car. That's insignificant by any measure, especially considering that a full oil change will generally leave 15-20% of the old oil in the crankcase. So, likely not valid in any worthwhile measure.
one has to add in fresh oil after the fact, thus introducing virgin oil volatility. Does it really matter at the end of the day? Probably not, but it is a valid concern methinks.
By the time the 4oz of virgin oil gets into the crankcase, you're talking 2.5% or less of the total crankcase volume on the average car. That's insignificant by any measure, especially considering that a full oil change will generally leave 15-20% of the old oil in the crankcase. So, likely not valid in any worthwhile measure.
"...change the oil filter, not the oil."
Dave Newton has used
study of mountains of data
to come to the conclusion
that oil filters
are at their most efficient,
not when new,
but after thousands of miles of service.
Dave Newton has used
study of mountains of data
to come to the conclusion
that oil filters
are at their most efficient,
not when new,
but after thousands of miles of service.
And mountains of data also show that oil continues to go through tribological changes when new (forming a new layer) and wear isn't fully minimized until around 3k miles. So are you going to put oil in your beater that you don't really like, run it 3k, and then drain it and put it into the car you really care about?
- Status
Similar threads
